+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument (/showthread.php?tid=133332)
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - |nfrared - 11-27-2015
I reread this a few times and think you should rename this thread to "Newbies read this - Rules Explained" or somesuch and get it pinned. This is useful info for newer people about how this place ticks.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - Timmy - 11-27-2015
(11-27-2015, 06:53 AM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: So I see this rule broken a lot so let me explain with an example, ok?
When you in a PvP fight.... Leave the character alone.... and the system alone... and the person you were fighting alone.... for TWO HOURS.
2
2 hours
used to be 4 hours, OK?
And like... there are so many other systems to go to.
Basically... be a good sport. Don't re-engage after you lost a fight. Sure you are mad but just let it go bro.
This isn't a game like Call of Duty ok? No quick respawns! Let the guy win in that system and move on if you have to.
Otherwise... what is the point of raiding... as an example? You'd just keep respawning!! Just dock on the nearest base, die, comeback, die , comeback.... Stupid.
But if the ship that killed you leaves the game... NP NP no harm in that!
Plus... you can also ask the guy if he will allow you to come back.... just a heads up.
From 1-10: 7
PvP ruined.
Of all rules my biggest issue is with 3.2. And the reason is oposite to yours. Why do you not re-engage, let's say, in a snub fight when you have died? Because snub fights are long paced fights. Okay, why are snub fights long paced? Because rule 3.2 doesn't allow you to return into fight, so if snubs were to die quickly, it would make no fun flying them. See what I mean?
Why not make such rule for Capital ships only? Then suddenly making a ballance by considering the price as well would make sense. Also Docking modules make a lot more sense as well. Raiding your enemy next to an NPC base would become harder, but in distant locations would be better, which I think makes perfect sense. Also transports hiring escorts would make sense. Pirates uniting in groups to go robing would make sense.
Basically the only downside to such idea are eternal fights that may occur, but it's easily fixed by giving admins an option to cut fights if they last more then an x ammount of time. Or by making snubs reliant on the capital ship/base presense nearby the fighting location.
Also, posible downside to it is RP maters, but to anyone who thinks that way I have an argument - Traders are excepted from this rule. So iRP mater for the rule have been cut long time ago, if there was any.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - pillow - 11-27-2015
* pillow coughs.
I may sound more or less weird but I kinda disagree with the 1.4/1.1. Not talking about actual adult content, I'm talking about the RP behind it. (Basically, just the text.)
Nothing wrong with one or two excessively gory threads every now and again.(1.1) Applies to, uh...romance, aswell.(1.4)
And besides, it's not like anyone is forced to read a thread. Can always be a sign near the thread name that says that the contents of the specified thread aren't exactly child-friendly.
Seeing a [CENSORED] message covering up some words/entire parts every time you scroll down in an RP thread you're reading kinda kills the point. Can always RP on Skype. The problem with that, however, is that the (unneeded but certainly welcome) pretty-looking formatting is absent on Skype. Even if the forum formatting annoys me sometimes I still give myself a lonely high-five everytime I do at least some half-decent formatting so my post doesn't look dull as hell.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - Lythrilux - 11-27-2015
It's quite nice to see a breakdown of the rules. I do agree that some do restrict gameplay and it could be said we have too many, but often it's justified. However I feel that the enforcement of some of the rules is overdone. Although no offense Nom whilst it is good you broke these rules down, I agree with Miaou that it's been structured and presented a bit poorly.
Starting with forum rules, the extent of censorship with 1.1 is ridiculous. I can't say c ancer, r ape, s alt or n igga. Those are all legitimate words that could be used inRP in stories, but are all censored into dumb childish words. The very last word is censored in game, and as a mixed race person I just feel that it shows how ignorant and uneducated the staff is that they censor that word. N igga is completely different to that other very naughty word and I am one of the few in this community who understand not only the difference, but how terrible the word is as well. And whilst there are some who don't find swearing pleasant, in a universe where there is prostitution, drugs, slavery and all sorts of other nasty things, I think people need to grow up. We're not a community of 9 year olds. And if we must at least keep some standards to prevent F-spam, can we at least relax things a bit? I remember how Korny got sanctioned for calling someone a b*tch inRP (the word wasn't blocked by the in game swear filter at the time) when it's use was entirely justified - the person he called that was just mad that they lost in a pvp fight moments later and had an axe to grind. In fact, that's my biggest issue with rule 1.1. I feel that many times people just use 1.1 to lash out at people via the rules when they are unable to in any other way. It would be nice if those sorts of reports could stop. In regards to politics though... eh I wouldn't want DiscoGC to become /pol/.
At first I was very cautious with 1.2 because I thought the admins would just unjustly use it as a means to punish players they didn't like, but over time as the admin team got better and more competent the way they've handled that rule has improved. Unfortunately there's loads of toxicity on Disco behind the scenes that the admins never see - and they either can never do anything about that because the players are very smart about causing harm within the scope of the rules, or the staff cannot do anything about it because they don't see it unfold in front of their eyes and it's very 'behind the scenes' and hard to tackle as the evidence might not always be conclusive (or found on the forums or the server).
1.3 - 1.7 are completely fair and are enforced adequately. Same applies for 2.1 and 2.2. I think the size limit on signatures for 2.3 is really dumb, as I'm pretty sure that no one (or at least the vast majority) of people here are not using a Dial-Up connection. 2.4 is a great rule, though as Nom said people sometimes commit things just as worse with other dumb memes like RWBY where one or two people will shout at the top of their forum lungs that it's the greatest thing ever whilst everyone else is wanting them to shut up about it because they've made it beyond annoying with their continuous spamming. 2.5 is fair play.
Moving onto server rules, I feel like the section before rule 1.0 about the admins should be extended to all the staff. There are times when the Moderators have done questionable things, and same even applies for the Dev team. As with my big paragraph on forum 1.1, I feel that server 1.1 should be addressed in the same way.
1.2 is a good rule and players have the means to justify if the disconnect wasn't their fault via Dii's thread. I feel that the rule could be expanded upon though, to describe a specific example. 1.3 is clear at least until the very last bit about the ID overriding the rules. Non-pirate IDs are confusing when it comes to rule 3.3 as by rule 3.3 an (e.g) Core ID can't blow up a trade ship without a demand. However it's ID doesn't say it needs to, therefore you could consider that by 1.3 you don't need to make a demand before you blow up a trade vessel.
Rule 2.1 is fine, same for 2.2. 2.3 has me on the fence as we've had examples in the past of names that are completely fair inRP but the admins have still come down on them. Oh well, I don't really know how to make that rule any clearer anyway.
3.0 and 3.1 are fine. I have my issues with 3.2. I feel that 3.2 punishes the roleplayer unfairly and only really implements measures to curb PvP habits, which don't matter that much as you can find PvP in other systems or Conn. Allow me to explain. A PvP heads into NY and sees 10 potential targets to shoot at. Say the majority of these are RPers. The PvPer shoots another PvP and wins the fight - he'll gain pleasure from an enjoyable battle. He then fights an RPer and the RPer loses. The RPer didn't log on to fight, but was more hopeful for roleplay encounters. In a system that, at the time, had 8 other players remaining, the RPer has just missed out on 8 potential RP encounters - 8 potential stories - and will have to go to another system, perhaps less active and less interesting, to find some RP. The PvPer later dies to an LNS cap, but he can just go to another system for PvP or head to conn. I think we should decrease the time that players are pvp dead for. An hour would perhaps be more fitting. 3,3 is fine. 3.4 is also fine. 3.5 in itself is a nice rule but doesn't necessarily do it's job; however I hope the new POB system will be implemented soon and will remedy this.
4.0 to 4.2 are fine. The bits about <29s and cheating are fine. The POB rules still have not covered what non-House factions are allowed to do in regards to POBs outside of house space. The bounty hunting rules are also fine.
The Faction rules section needs to be updated with Perks as well as the Hardship programme.
As one final statement though, I think it'd be great if the staff compiled all the 'Green Statements' (where the admins make an official statement that impacts the server meaningfully as to how the players are allowed to act) in one post in the rules thread. There are some statements which are extremely important and should be there for everyone to educate themselves on.
If an orange censors my first paragraph I am going to be so annoyed
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - RmJ - 11-27-2015
These rules are simple if you know your hosting ID's lore well. They become grey if you try to move outside of the lore, and-or have no idea what the lore is.
Forum rules are fine, there is zero issue with them.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - nOmnomnOm - 11-27-2015
(11-27-2015, 08:51 AM)Alley Wrote:(11-27-2015, 06:53 AM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: snip snip
snip snip
Thank you <:
yeah it is really long... and i kinda surprised myself too at the end.
Though I didnt leave it very technically explained... so if people are looking for that then I can do it.....
But I rather explained it in a.... nommy-like way
(11-27-2015, 08:54 AM)Epo Wrote: To be honest: System ban isn't necessary. I agree that it helps a lot to keep peace there, but I've also played on some other servers, like most of you most likely. Your behavior in game makes it needed or not needed, some people could respect other people and play fair pews even with respawn-mode. Maybe you didn't play on such a server, donno. Of course there were some people who were really annoying, because they wanted to kill you everywhere and always, however even withno system ban some rules were helping in this situation as well. But, don't we have the same problem as well? You can often meet some people who are breaking rules, respawning and behaving weird. It's only different how they're treated like: just a conversation on vanila servers or a sanction / ban here. Really, a few sentences and the "pirate" let you leave the system, due to the very few rules present as well.
So the rules aren't the problem: our behavior is.
About the raids: Right, it could be a problem if only one side could respawn, yeah? But the thing is that BOTH sides could respawn, because who's raiding withno at least one battleship, huh? Battleships were working like mobile pobs with one exception: if the battleship died, player who was docked inside weren't respawning 100k below the sun --> just in the last docked (not belonging to player) base. So BOTH sides had equal chances, both sides had equal respawning possibility etc.
So even a side withno present battleships could defend themself via spawning in NPC base, and the raiding one could make their work well via spawning in their battleships. Well and that's why the BSs were primary targets if your territories was being raided
The another problem about respawning is that snub combats are taking too much time if both players have equal skill count. Respawning will hurt if it's how it is right now and wouldn't hurt if snub combats would take less time.
Not arguing, just explaining some other point of view, maybe unknown to some of you
To make it clear: I am not against the rules, I just think that some of them aren't perfect
Well you know... personally i quite like how snub fights take long he people are good on both sides. things can get really intense...
I dont see though how this... relates to rules?
You kinda also ... kinda proved my point when saying... well... that people were annoying and jumping back in...
The main reason why the rule is there is so people when they die dont come back from the dead and fight the guy that already won yet again.
Seriously... it's 2 hours. You can still play that same character too if you leave the system and not interact with the guy that killed you...
(11-27-2015, 09:20 AM)Miaou Wrote: A lot of this is opinionated and formatted as such. It's not really a strong argument when you type it out like someone updating their facebook status. You don't really argue any real reason to remove or change any of the rules with a few exceptions; most of them are just "I don't like it :|" or something of the sort. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for the rules being made simpler or removing redundant rules, but if I can't really take it seriously.
Well... 1st off... how would one make a thread about commenting/explaining the rules without an opinion on the rules and what they mean?
2nd... I can re-write it if people are interested. Np in making it a less silly thread to explain.
3rd. The opinion is based on basically : How bad will it be if this rule is take away. It is a way of showing just how important the rules are and why they shouldnt be less of them...
So no... i am not arguing for change... I am arguing to explain they are there for the survival of the server.
But common the sig requirements for size are stupppiiddd
PPP (jks)I get that there needs to be a standard size an all.... but sometimes it is too small Q.Q
That's my only real bias in the whole thread pretty much xD
(11-27-2015, 11:13 AM)|nfrared Wrote: I reread this a few times and think you should rename this thread to "Newbies read this - Rules Explained" or somesuch and get it pinned. This is useful info for newer people about how this place ticks.
I could do that.
I re-read it too and ye... some things need to be a re-written since i was typing at like... midnight... so at some points I went full nommy-sarcasm explanations.
But I mean.... in some places it is necessary because the rule is so damn obvious to understand why.
In any case... yeah this thread is good for new guys... primarily becasue it is written in an easy-to-read-and-understand fashion. That was the intent anyway.
(11-27-2015, 11:33 AM)Timmy Wrote:(11-27-2015, 06:53 AM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: So I see this rule broken a lot so let me explain with an example, ok?
...snip snip...
Of all rules my biggest issue is with 3.2. And the reason is oposite to yours. Why do you not re-engage, let's say, in a snub fight when you have died? Because snub fights are long paced fights. Okay, why are snub fights long paced? Because rule 3.2 doesn't allow you to return into fight, so if snubs were to die quickly, it would make no fun flying them. See what I mean?
Why not make such rule for Capital ships only? Then suddenly making a ballance by considering the price as well would make sense. Also Docking modules make a lot more sense as well. Raiding your enemy next to an NPC base would become harder, but in distant locations would be better, which I think makes perfect sense. Also transports hiring escorts would make sense. Pirates uniting in groups to go robing would make sense.
Basically the only downside to such idea are eternal fights that may occur, but it's easily fixed by giving admins an option to cut fights if they last more then an x ammount of time. Or by making snubs reliant on the capital ship/base presense nearby the fighting location.
Also, posible downside to it is RP maters, but to anyone who thinks that way I have an argument - Traders are excepted from this rule. So iRP mater for the rule have been cut long time ago, if there was any.
I dont see as 3.2 is there to balance the long pvp fights. I see it as to simulate that the guy that died is gone and the person that killed him doesn't have to worry about him for 2 hours.
Suppose a LNS cap is flying around in NY and 2-3 bombers nab him. Without this rule then there is no point of having the cap even try to take the bombers out since they will just come back after death.
(11-27-2015, 11:48 AM)Freedom Phantom Wrote: * Freedom Phantom coughs.
I may sound more or less weird but I kinda disagree with the 1.4/1.1. Not talking about actual adult content, I'm talking about the RP behind it. (Basically, just the text.)
Nothing wrong with one or two excessively gory threads every now and again.(1.1) Applies to, uh...romance, aswell.(1.4)
And besides, it's not like anyone is forced to read a thread. Can always be a sign near the thread name that says that the contents of the specified thread aren't exactly child-friendly.
Seeing a [CENSORED] message covering up some words/entire parts every time you scroll down in an RP thread you're reading kinda kills the point. Can always RP on Skype. The problem with that, however, is that the (unneeded but certainly welcome) pretty-looking formatting is absent on Skype. Even if the forum formatting annoys me sometimes I still give myself a lonely high-five everytime I do at least some half-decent formatting so my post doesn't look dull as hell.
so you are talking about cyber and swearing :| ?
...Kay
Gory? Nah i agree... there are horror stories anyway....
But also keep in mind we do not want to turn this disco forums into fan-fiction of "The Liberty Siege Cruiser Let the Nomad battleship . . . " If you know what i mean :|
it's a way to keep the forums clean.
But yeah... since it is already on skype.... it would not be a huge, imo, factor in killing the server.... just.... starting to....
Actually well it depends on how far we take this.
BASICALLY it is there so that things dont go out of hand :|
But also keep the adult stuff private. plox
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - Timmy - 11-27-2015
(11-27-2015, 04:34 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: I dont see as 3.2 is there to balance the long pvp fights. I see it as to simulate that the guy that died is gone and the person that killed him doesn't have to worry about him for 2 hours.
Suppose a LNS cap is flying around in NY and 2-3 bombers nab him. Without this rule then there is no point of having the cap even try to take the bombers out since they will just come back after death.
Kinda proved the point that that some people don't read whole post before answering it.
(11-27-2015, 11:33 AM)Timmy Wrote: Why not make such rule for Capital ships only? Then suddenly making a ballance by considering the price as well would make sense. Also Docking modules make a lot more sense as well. Raiding your enemy next to an NPC base would become harder, but in distant locations would be better, which I think makes perfect sense. Also transports hiring escorts would make sense. Pirates uniting in groups to go robing would make sense.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - Shinju - 11-27-2015
(11-27-2015, 04:34 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: it's a way to keep the forums clean.
But yeah... since it is already on skype....
Not everyone has Skype aaaaaaaand not everyone is in Skype Faction Chats, right?
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - RmJ - 11-27-2015
Also the 3.2 rule is there to stop infinite fights. If you die in a fight you\'re dead, move on. The universe is too small to keep players to have infinite respawn in a battle.
Then get skype, and get a faction together or join one with a faction chat.
RE: The "Too many rules on the server" argument argument - Timmy - 11-27-2015
(11-27-2015, 04:40 PM)Zigeris Wrote: Also the 3.2 rule is there to stop infinite fights. If you die in a fight you\'re dead, move on. The universe is too small to keep players to have infinite respawn in a battle.
(11-27-2015, 11:33 AM)Timmy Wrote: Basically the only downside to such idea are eternal fights that may occur, but it's easily fixed by giving admins an option to cut fights if they last more then an x ammount of time. Or by making snubs reliant on the capital ship/base presense nearby the fighting location.